Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Marc Riley recommended Hex Enduction Hour by The Fall in Music (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018
Good start to the DARK KNIGHT trilogy
BATMAN BEGINS is a seminal film in the oeuvre of Christopher Nolan for a variety of reasons. Certainly, it became his biggest Box Office success to date and marked him as an "A" list Director. Also, you start seeing the recurring actors that I call "the Nolan players" in his films - Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe. But, most importantly, BATMAN BEGINS starts showing the Hallmarks of what a "Christopher Nolan" film is.
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What are "hallmarks of a Christopher Nolan" film? Well...the film starts with a long tracking shot.. If you just showed me this shot, I would have instantly said "Christopher Nolan". Nolan plays with time (as usual) in this film, albeit, in a "standard" flash back, flash forward way. And, of course, there is the driving Hans Zimmer score and marvelous Cinematography by frequent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. All sure signs that you are watching something directed by Nolan.
BATMAN BEGINS, of course, tells the origin story of Bruce Wayne/Batman. While most of us (including me) rolled their eyes in 2005 at the thought of another Batman flick (the memories of George Clooney and his "Bat-Nipples" still fresh), Nolan had a different idea - a serious take on the material. And it is the realism and grit that make this film work. Instead of making a COMIC BOOK movie, Nolan made a movie BASED ON a comic book (an important distinction) and this spin on this genre works very well.
Downing the cowl in this film is Christian Bale. At the time, he was NOT a household name. As a matter of fact, he was beginning to be branded as a young, talented actor who was somewhat difficult to work with. Casting Bale in the title role was a stroke of genius by Nolan. He is the perfect embodiment of this character. Showing the dark side - and intensity - that this character needs, Bale also brings a bit of playfullness that I did not remember to the part - and this helps balance the character, he is just not all "Dark Knight" (do you hear me current JUSTICE LEAGUE Directors/Writers)?
Michael Caine is also perfectly cast as the fatherly figure, Alfred Pennywise (Bruce Wayne's Butler) as is Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. Jim Gordon. What makes Oldman's casting so interesting is that it was so against type for him. The same can be said for Liam Neeson's casting as Ducard. You could argue that "Liam Neeson - Action Star" grew from this role. Along for the ride is good ol' Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, the "Q" of this series, so we get an answer to the age old question "how does Batman get all those wonderful toys". Finally, I have to admit that - upon rewatching this film - I was surprised at how good Katie Holmes is in the role of Rachel Dawes. Sure, it ends up being the typical "damsel in distress" role at the end, but until then she brings a character of strength to the screen that more than holds her own against Bale.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is not just about the characters, it is about the vision - and the action - that Nolan brings to the screen and he brings it hard. This film is dark - and works here. Up until now, SuperHero films were multi-colored, bright COMIC BOOK looking films, but Nolan brings grit, realism and darkness to the proceedings here. It is a jarring change that instantly made this film very interesting to watch (of course, it also ushered in the era of "dark" films, but I can't blame Nolan for poor copycats).
Nolan also relied on - primarily - practical effectst througout this film and the movie has a heaviness to it because of it. When a train crashes, you feel that a train has crashed. When Batman breaks through the window, you can FEEL the window break. This sort of visceral experience just can't be duplicated on a green screen.
Not everything in this film works - Tom Wilkerson's mob boss Falcone is a bit too cartoon-y for my tastes and Cillian Murphy's villain SCARECROW just isn't villiany enough for me - but these are quibbles in a film that was unique for it's time - and ushered in a whole new way to make SuperHero films. A type of film that Nolan will continue to tweak - and improve on - in the subsequent films in this Dark Knight series.
One final note, when rewatching a film from over 10 years ago, it is fun (at least for me) to see "stars before they were stars" in small roles. In this one, Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes character helps a little boy through the carnage of the final battle. I kept looking at that little boy and saying to myself - who is that? GAME OF THRONES fans will recognize that little boy is none other than King Joffrey himself, Jack Gleeson.
If you haven't seen BATMAN BEGINS in awhile, check it out - it holds up well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Like most kids growing up in the 80’s the Transformers always held a special place in my heart. I didn’t have a huge collection because the die-cast/plastic vehicles that transformed into robots could get a little expensive. Thankfully the morning cartoons and comic books filled in the spaces where I lacked the toys. When I heard there would be a live action movie based on the characters that had been such a integral part of my childhood, I couldn’t help but feel excited. I had seen some of the previews of the original Transformers movie by Michael Bay, the characters looked different than I imagined, but how bad could it be. The movie started, and heart break ensued, the first one was ok, the second was worse, and so on and so forth to a point where I still have not brought myself to watch the last installment of the Michael Bay franchise. Fast Forward to the first glimpse I had of Bumblebee, a prequel/reboot of the Transformers franchise, and that feeling of trepidation lingered. The first glimmer of hope was when the previews began to show images of the Transformers that I remembered, now referred to as G1 (Generation One), these transformers were recognizable. Still, the stories have always been lacking, so while I held out a glimmer of hope, I was sure to guard my heart closely…after all, we’ve been down this road before.
Bumblebee begins on Cybertron, where the Autobots and Decepticons are battling for control of what is left of the planet. The visuals are stunning, and as I stated before, here our all our favorites from the G1 universe in their recognizable forms. Once I saw Wheeljack, a personal favorite of mine, I felt I was in for something special. The Autobots are losing control to the evil Decepticons and are forced to evacuate Cybertron to regroup. Bumblebee is sent to Earth, a planet where Optimus Prime feels that the Autobots can rendezvous, but also tasked to protect the planet from any encroachment of the Decepticons.
Bumblebee unfortunately crash lands in the middle of a military training exercise and is quickly engaged by the armed forces there. While Bumblebee alone is a match for the Humvees and small arms fire, the battle is quickly joined by a Decepticon who has followed Bumblebee to Earth. He is completely out matched and outgunned it is not long before Bumblebee is defeated and barely escapes with his life. It is here that he is “saved” by Charlie Watson (Hailee Steinfeld) who finds the battered and broken beetle in a junkyard on her birthday, and a deep bond between the two is formed.
Bumblebee does not disappoint in its amazing visuals. The robots are as big as ever, yet now retain a more familiar look. The story still has explosions, and epic one-on-one robot battles that fans of the Michael Bay franchise can enjoy, but it’s the deep and meaningful story where Bumblebee truly shines. Written by Christina Hodson (Shut In/Unforgetable) and Directed by Travis Knight (Kudo and the Two Strings/Paranorman) we are finally given a story with a plot that fans of the series can get behind and enjoy. It’s not to say that the story is perfect, there are still the occasional lines that fall into groan-worthy territory, but to say that Bumblebee surpasses the previous live action movies is an understatement.
You don’t have to be a fan (or have any familiarity at all) with the Transformer toys, cartoon, or live action movies to enjoy it. However, for those who have been fortunate (or unfortunate) to experience them all will appreciate the subtle nods to previous films. The audience clapped and cheered when Stan Bush’s well-known Transformer song The Touch exploded on screen. Sure, it’s a spoiler, but for those who are still reluctant to see it based on previous films, maybe it’s exactly what’s needed. The film is littered with such nods and die-hard Transformer fans are in for a real treat.
The acting in the film is top-notch, not only by Hailee Steinfeld and Jorge Lendeborg Jr who are the main human characters, but by the supporting characters as well. John Cena brings his witty one-liners and Peter Cullen once again reprises his role of the now infamous Optimus Prime. For a movie that seems more at home as a summer blockbuster, it carries with it a tremendous amount of heart. Even Bumblebee who rarely utters a word throughout the entire film, brings out emotion in his facial expressions, or movements.
I’ll admit that going into Bumblebee I had my reservations and for those who have been burned by previous iterations of the series it’s a completely understandable concern. I’ll say it here though, Bumblebee is a terrific Transformers movie, easily on-par with the animated film, which to date had been the only Transformer movie worth talking about. Fans of the franchise will not be disappointed, and probably like myself, will be naming the numerous Transformers on the screen, by how they look…not by what they are called. In the famous words of Optimus Prime…Autobots Roll-out, and go see Bumblebee, coming to theaters on December 21st.
Bumblebee begins on Cybertron, where the Autobots and Decepticons are battling for control of what is left of the planet. The visuals are stunning, and as I stated before, here our all our favorites from the G1 universe in their recognizable forms. Once I saw Wheeljack, a personal favorite of mine, I felt I was in for something special. The Autobots are losing control to the evil Decepticons and are forced to evacuate Cybertron to regroup. Bumblebee is sent to Earth, a planet where Optimus Prime feels that the Autobots can rendezvous, but also tasked to protect the planet from any encroachment of the Decepticons.
Bumblebee unfortunately crash lands in the middle of a military training exercise and is quickly engaged by the armed forces there. While Bumblebee alone is a match for the Humvees and small arms fire, the battle is quickly joined by a Decepticon who has followed Bumblebee to Earth. He is completely out matched and outgunned it is not long before Bumblebee is defeated and barely escapes with his life. It is here that he is “saved” by Charlie Watson (Hailee Steinfeld) who finds the battered and broken beetle in a junkyard on her birthday, and a deep bond between the two is formed.
Bumblebee does not disappoint in its amazing visuals. The robots are as big as ever, yet now retain a more familiar look. The story still has explosions, and epic one-on-one robot battles that fans of the Michael Bay franchise can enjoy, but it’s the deep and meaningful story where Bumblebee truly shines. Written by Christina Hodson (Shut In/Unforgetable) and Directed by Travis Knight (Kudo and the Two Strings/Paranorman) we are finally given a story with a plot that fans of the series can get behind and enjoy. It’s not to say that the story is perfect, there are still the occasional lines that fall into groan-worthy territory, but to say that Bumblebee surpasses the previous live action movies is an understatement.
You don’t have to be a fan (or have any familiarity at all) with the Transformer toys, cartoon, or live action movies to enjoy it. However, for those who have been fortunate (or unfortunate) to experience them all will appreciate the subtle nods to previous films. The audience clapped and cheered when Stan Bush’s well-known Transformer song The Touch exploded on screen. Sure, it’s a spoiler, but for those who are still reluctant to see it based on previous films, maybe it’s exactly what’s needed. The film is littered with such nods and die-hard Transformer fans are in for a real treat.
The acting in the film is top-notch, not only by Hailee Steinfeld and Jorge Lendeborg Jr who are the main human characters, but by the supporting characters as well. John Cena brings his witty one-liners and Peter Cullen once again reprises his role of the now infamous Optimus Prime. For a movie that seems more at home as a summer blockbuster, it carries with it a tremendous amount of heart. Even Bumblebee who rarely utters a word throughout the entire film, brings out emotion in his facial expressions, or movements.
I’ll admit that going into Bumblebee I had my reservations and for those who have been burned by previous iterations of the series it’s a completely understandable concern. I’ll say it here though, Bumblebee is a terrific Transformers movie, easily on-par with the animated film, which to date had been the only Transformer movie worth talking about. Fans of the franchise will not be disappointed, and probably like myself, will be naming the numerous Transformers on the screen, by how they look…not by what they are called. In the famous words of Optimus Prime…Autobots Roll-out, and go see Bumblebee, coming to theaters on December 21st.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 11, 2021
The two Emmas (2 more)
The rest of the ensemble cast
The technical team: cinematography, hair & make-up; costuming
An astonishing attack on the senses as Disney goes to the dark side.
Positives:
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Who didn’t grow up as a child of the eighties and nineties and not play with G.I. Joes? And of those, who can honestly say they were not thoroughly disappointed in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra? Surprisingly, I can say that I wasn’t thoroughly disappointed, but I know the movie could have been so much more than it was. Could it have done without the surreal technology, the sappy love story and the unrealistic action scenes in the movie? Yes. Many fans cried out about this. G.I. Joe: Retaliation set out to respond.
Did they succeed? That’s debatable, but they did a lot of things right in the go-around. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not award winning or anything, and you should never expect a movie like this to be that. But let’s run through a check list. Sappy out of place love-story: gone. Surreal technology: less. Let’s face it, despite what some people felt about the first movie, it did kind of set that precedent. Retaliation is considered a true follow up to The Rise of Cobra. So would it honestly make any sense to go from one extreme of nearly impossible gadgets to none at all? Absolutely not. Besides, the cartoon series also had technology in it. I am not trying to defend the use of it, and there were some pretty crazy gadgets going on in this movie, but it seemed to jive better with what I remember of it as a kid. And they found a really unique way to tone it down without it not seeming right. Unfortunately, there is still a fair amount of unrealistic action in this movie, but that’s kind of become the norm for most action movies these days.
We pick up fairly close to where we left off in The Rise of Cobra. Duke (Channing Tatum) is now commanding a unit of the Joes with Roadblock, Lady Jaye, Flint and Snake Eyes (Dwayne Johnson, Adrianne Palicki, D.J. Cotrona and Ray Park respectively) under his command. The Joes are sent out on a mission, a good rapport is built between Duke and Roadblock, but then they go and destroy that when their convoy gets attacked by Cobra eliminating Duke from the rest of the film. Go cry spoiler somewhere else, this happens in the beginning of the movie, and it’s been everywhere since the delay of the movie from last year. I was hoping they would somehow managed to keep him in the movie, especially after seeing the chemistry between Tatum and Johnson, but alas…
So the convoy attacked, and all the Joes presumed dead. Only Roadblock, Jaye and Flint actually survive and try to get to the bottom of everything. Meanwhile President Zartan (remember how the last movie ended) is up to his own nefarious plans in breaking out Cobra Commander with the aide of Storm Shadow. The Joes work their magic, still have access to some technology (though not over the top like The Rise of Cobra), and recruit people to help them along the way, including the man who is the reason the Joes were started: General Joe Coulton (played epic-ly by Bruce Willis).
The movie was entertaining, had a lot of great and clever humor that wasn’t thrown in your face, and had some great action scenes (if you can get past the fact that in one scene they are fighting Cirque Du Soleil style on the side of a cliff). But it’s some of the little things in this movie that prevent it from redeeming the franchise after the first iteration, including the casting of RZA in a part that looks like it is meant to be serious, but his horrible acting make you really wonder if it was supposed to be a serious role or not. The other gripe I had with the movie was the unlikely resolution of the main conflict. With the Cobra Commander so confident in his plan, why would he, or any self-respecting super villain, deliver a way to foil the evil plan with literally half a second left on a silver platter. The last issue I had with the movie was Storm Shadow. I really liked the conflict between him and Snake Eyes in The Rise of Cobra, but they seemed to discredit his character a lot in this movie. Ultimately they changed the nature of Storm Shadow to make it seem as if he might switch sides in any future installments of the franchise, and that’s just not cool. The character was awesome the way he was.
As for the 3D aspect, it’s said this was the reason that the studio delayed the movie for a year. They wanted to add more effects to it. This tells me two things: the movie was shot in 2D and they had little faith in it. Honestly, I think we all know they tried to add more Duke to the movie in this time (which it’s really hard to tell if they did), but you can tell there was work done with 3D aspect. Too much. It was very distracting at points, and it seemed liked they added elements to scenes just to have 3D. For instance there was a scene where you were in a situation room viewing information on a monitor. It literally looked like they just super imposed a shoulder into the lower right of the screen so they could have in 3D as if you were looking over someone’s shoulder. That’s just silly.
All that being said. I had fun watching the movie. Dwayne Johnson is becoming a powerhouse that everyone was expecting him to years ago. I hope that he can continue this streak with some good movies (he’s got two more within the next month alone). I own the first one on Blu Ray, and I will probably buy this one when comes out as well. I would watch it in theater just for the enormity of the action on the big screen, but skip the 3D.
Did they succeed? That’s debatable, but they did a lot of things right in the go-around. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not award winning or anything, and you should never expect a movie like this to be that. But let’s run through a check list. Sappy out of place love-story: gone. Surreal technology: less. Let’s face it, despite what some people felt about the first movie, it did kind of set that precedent. Retaliation is considered a true follow up to The Rise of Cobra. So would it honestly make any sense to go from one extreme of nearly impossible gadgets to none at all? Absolutely not. Besides, the cartoon series also had technology in it. I am not trying to defend the use of it, and there were some pretty crazy gadgets going on in this movie, but it seemed to jive better with what I remember of it as a kid. And they found a really unique way to tone it down without it not seeming right. Unfortunately, there is still a fair amount of unrealistic action in this movie, but that’s kind of become the norm for most action movies these days.
We pick up fairly close to where we left off in The Rise of Cobra. Duke (Channing Tatum) is now commanding a unit of the Joes with Roadblock, Lady Jaye, Flint and Snake Eyes (Dwayne Johnson, Adrianne Palicki, D.J. Cotrona and Ray Park respectively) under his command. The Joes are sent out on a mission, a good rapport is built between Duke and Roadblock, but then they go and destroy that when their convoy gets attacked by Cobra eliminating Duke from the rest of the film. Go cry spoiler somewhere else, this happens in the beginning of the movie, and it’s been everywhere since the delay of the movie from last year. I was hoping they would somehow managed to keep him in the movie, especially after seeing the chemistry between Tatum and Johnson, but alas…
So the convoy attacked, and all the Joes presumed dead. Only Roadblock, Jaye and Flint actually survive and try to get to the bottom of everything. Meanwhile President Zartan (remember how the last movie ended) is up to his own nefarious plans in breaking out Cobra Commander with the aide of Storm Shadow. The Joes work their magic, still have access to some technology (though not over the top like The Rise of Cobra), and recruit people to help them along the way, including the man who is the reason the Joes were started: General Joe Coulton (played epic-ly by Bruce Willis).
The movie was entertaining, had a lot of great and clever humor that wasn’t thrown in your face, and had some great action scenes (if you can get past the fact that in one scene they are fighting Cirque Du Soleil style on the side of a cliff). But it’s some of the little things in this movie that prevent it from redeeming the franchise after the first iteration, including the casting of RZA in a part that looks like it is meant to be serious, but his horrible acting make you really wonder if it was supposed to be a serious role or not. The other gripe I had with the movie was the unlikely resolution of the main conflict. With the Cobra Commander so confident in his plan, why would he, or any self-respecting super villain, deliver a way to foil the evil plan with literally half a second left on a silver platter. The last issue I had with the movie was Storm Shadow. I really liked the conflict between him and Snake Eyes in The Rise of Cobra, but they seemed to discredit his character a lot in this movie. Ultimately they changed the nature of Storm Shadow to make it seem as if he might switch sides in any future installments of the franchise, and that’s just not cool. The character was awesome the way he was.
As for the 3D aspect, it’s said this was the reason that the studio delayed the movie for a year. They wanted to add more effects to it. This tells me two things: the movie was shot in 2D and they had little faith in it. Honestly, I think we all know they tried to add more Duke to the movie in this time (which it’s really hard to tell if they did), but you can tell there was work done with 3D aspect. Too much. It was very distracting at points, and it seemed liked they added elements to scenes just to have 3D. For instance there was a scene where you were in a situation room viewing information on a monitor. It literally looked like they just super imposed a shoulder into the lower right of the screen so they could have in 3D as if you were looking over someone’s shoulder. That’s just silly.
All that being said. I had fun watching the movie. Dwayne Johnson is becoming a powerhouse that everyone was expecting him to years ago. I hope that he can continue this streak with some good movies (he’s got two more within the next month alone). I own the first one on Blu Ray, and I will probably buy this one when comes out as well. I would watch it in theater just for the enormity of the action on the big screen, but skip the 3D.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Scooby-Doo: Escape from the Haunted Mansion in Tabletop Games
Dec 1, 2020
YES! A Scooby-Doo game! AND it’s an escape room style game? I am so fired up to play this! This was my line of thinking as I received this game in the mail. Scooby-Doo is one of my favorite cartoon shows from my youth, and name a better episode than the Harlem Globetrotters episode. I’ll wait. So with a winning design team of Jay Cormier and Sen-Foong Lim (of the excellent Belfort game) this should be a giant hit, right?
Like I mentioned, Scooby-Doo: Escape from the Haunted Mansion is an escape room style board game with the tag of, “A Coded Chronicles Game.” This is a series of similar style games coming to us from the publisher using different IPs. This review will be lots different than our others because I do not wish to provide any spoilers, so I am eliminating my typical “messy components” shot at the end. I have also smudged the entire second photo so as not to give away anything. On to the review.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, read the rulebook, and turn to the proper paragraph number in the starting booklet. Each Mystery, Inc. character (“the gang”) has their own booklet with paragraphs and instructions inside. If you have ever played a game like Tales of the Arabian Nights you will know the style. The entry in the booklet will instruct players how to setup the first map tile and set the stage for the plot of the game.
This game features gameplay with no “turns,” so any person may choose to control a character from the gang and have them take some action. The possible actions that can be taken by the gang are: Velma may Research something, Shaggy can Eat stuff, Daphne Uses things, Scoob Smells, and Fred Investigates. Each character is assigned a single-digit number to be combined with items on the map tiles to arrive at a four-digit paragraph number. Find the number in the respective booklet and read aloud to the rest of the players. If successful, more map tiles may be added, or other things (being vague on purpose).
Should the entry not exist or instruct you to otherwise, players will need to “eat a Scooby Snack” by crossing off or reducing the total number of Snacks each time. We used another publisher’s pin to move along the track at the end of the rulebook because I didn’t feel like finding a coin.
As players progress through the game they will be presented with several challenges to figure out together. Half way through the game is a break time between Chapters 1 & 2. We were able to play this game over two nights utilizing the break.
At the end of Chapter 2 the game ends. If the players can successfully solve the case, they win! Alternately, if playing with academics, the rulebook provides a scale of VPs corresponding to the number of Scooby Snacks remaining. Whichever end-game method is chosen, the game is over and can be passed along to another household or gamer friend. That’s right, this is a one-shot escape room game. Only cheaters would go through it a second time…
Components. I cannot speak about many of the components, but I will evaluate what you see in the above photo. The rulebook and subsequent character booklets are all fine, but are curved as a result of how they sit in the box. The box itself is a strange design that you do not see with many board games. It’s not at all bad, just different. The cards are good, the map tiles are thin cardstock, and I can’t really discuss the Secret Envelopes. My biggest gripe about the game is the character standees. They are a long strip of thin stock that is folded in half, then the ends flared to make an inverted T shape. I mean, it’s fine, but this game could have done with a plastic stand for a sturdier standee to fit inside, or even basic miniatures. These standees that are included fall over all the time and when touched, even a little, flop on the table like a “professional” soccer player.
The gameplay, however, is very cool and I enjoyed my playthrough quite a bit. I very much enjoy one-shot games and despise when they ask you to destroy different components. No thanks, says me. Luckily, Scooby-Doo is able to be reset and given or sold to another person. I like that.
I also really enjoyed exploring the Haunted Mansion and trying to outwit the different challenges the game presented. This is not a particularly super difficult game to master, but will certainly give players a couple of fun hours of play with a group of animated childhood friends. For the nostalgia alone I would suggest this one, but there is also a pretty darn good game here. I have zero experience with the other Coded Chronicles Game from The Op (using The Shining), so I don’t know if I would enjoy it or not, but I loved Scooby-Doo and I adored my time with him. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a meddling 12 / 18. If you are looking for a game you can circulate through your gamer friend network and enjoy the theme, then check out Scooby-Doo: Escape from the Haunted Mansion. It is cute, fun, and gives the ol’ noggin a workout. Also, privately message or email me and let me know if you figured out the correct ending. I did not.
Like I mentioned, Scooby-Doo: Escape from the Haunted Mansion is an escape room style board game with the tag of, “A Coded Chronicles Game.” This is a series of similar style games coming to us from the publisher using different IPs. This review will be lots different than our others because I do not wish to provide any spoilers, so I am eliminating my typical “messy components” shot at the end. I have also smudged the entire second photo so as not to give away anything. On to the review.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, read the rulebook, and turn to the proper paragraph number in the starting booklet. Each Mystery, Inc. character (“the gang”) has their own booklet with paragraphs and instructions inside. If you have ever played a game like Tales of the Arabian Nights you will know the style. The entry in the booklet will instruct players how to setup the first map tile and set the stage for the plot of the game.
This game features gameplay with no “turns,” so any person may choose to control a character from the gang and have them take some action. The possible actions that can be taken by the gang are: Velma may Research something, Shaggy can Eat stuff, Daphne Uses things, Scoob Smells, and Fred Investigates. Each character is assigned a single-digit number to be combined with items on the map tiles to arrive at a four-digit paragraph number. Find the number in the respective booklet and read aloud to the rest of the players. If successful, more map tiles may be added, or other things (being vague on purpose).
Should the entry not exist or instruct you to otherwise, players will need to “eat a Scooby Snack” by crossing off or reducing the total number of Snacks each time. We used another publisher’s pin to move along the track at the end of the rulebook because I didn’t feel like finding a coin.
As players progress through the game they will be presented with several challenges to figure out together. Half way through the game is a break time between Chapters 1 & 2. We were able to play this game over two nights utilizing the break.
At the end of Chapter 2 the game ends. If the players can successfully solve the case, they win! Alternately, if playing with academics, the rulebook provides a scale of VPs corresponding to the number of Scooby Snacks remaining. Whichever end-game method is chosen, the game is over and can be passed along to another household or gamer friend. That’s right, this is a one-shot escape room game. Only cheaters would go through it a second time…
Components. I cannot speak about many of the components, but I will evaluate what you see in the above photo. The rulebook and subsequent character booklets are all fine, but are curved as a result of how they sit in the box. The box itself is a strange design that you do not see with many board games. It’s not at all bad, just different. The cards are good, the map tiles are thin cardstock, and I can’t really discuss the Secret Envelopes. My biggest gripe about the game is the character standees. They are a long strip of thin stock that is folded in half, then the ends flared to make an inverted T shape. I mean, it’s fine, but this game could have done with a plastic stand for a sturdier standee to fit inside, or even basic miniatures. These standees that are included fall over all the time and when touched, even a little, flop on the table like a “professional” soccer player.
The gameplay, however, is very cool and I enjoyed my playthrough quite a bit. I very much enjoy one-shot games and despise when they ask you to destroy different components. No thanks, says me. Luckily, Scooby-Doo is able to be reset and given or sold to another person. I like that.
I also really enjoyed exploring the Haunted Mansion and trying to outwit the different challenges the game presented. This is not a particularly super difficult game to master, but will certainly give players a couple of fun hours of play with a group of animated childhood friends. For the nostalgia alone I would suggest this one, but there is also a pretty darn good game here. I have zero experience with the other Coded Chronicles Game from The Op (using The Shining), so I don’t know if I would enjoy it or not, but I loved Scooby-Doo and I adored my time with him. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a meddling 12 / 18. If you are looking for a game you can circulate through your gamer friend network and enjoy the theme, then check out Scooby-Doo: Escape from the Haunted Mansion. It is cute, fun, and gives the ol’ noggin a workout. Also, privately message or email me and let me know if you figured out the correct ending. I did not.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Warhammer: Chaosbane in Video Games
Jul 8, 2019
There have been a lot of Warhammer games released over the past year or so. Everything from managing spaceships, to Real-Time Strategy, to Tactical Combat based games have been represented between the Warhammer and the Warhammer 40,000 universe. EKO Software and Bigben decided to add the action-RPG to the mix with their fun to play Diablo clone Warhammer: Chaosbane.
Much like the games that it takes inspiration from, you have the opportunity to pick one of four characters to battle the Lords of Chaos and bring order to the land. Your standard archetype characters are all here in standard Warhammer Fantasy. The Dwarven “Slayer” class, for those who like a barbarian class to rage havoc upon his foes, The High-Elf Mage who utilizes his magic to bring down the forces of chaos, the ho-hum Imperial Soldier who can take and deal out a huge amount of damage, and the Wood Elf who uses her bow and dagger to deal damage at a frighteningly fast pace.
Each of the characters have their own unique secondary ability that allows them to gain a strategic advantage on their foes. The Slayer can vault himself into enemies (much like the Barbarian class in Diablo), The Mage can control magical projectiles towards his targets, the Imperial soldier can shield bash targets and the Wood Elf can tumble in and out of danger. I played through the vast majority of the game as the Wood Elf and learning to use her tumble ability and stay mobile is some of the best ways to beat the bosses that you will come across.
One area where Warhammer: Chaosbane improves on the standard Diablo formula is how it handles health and energy/mana. Various items you equip can provide health regeneration on their own or you also possess the ability to use a “health Potion” that refills slowly each time you use it. Thankfully this means you don’t have individual health potions cluttering up your inventory. Mana/Energy is used for special attacks and actions…each time you use a skill some of your Mana/Energy is used. There are a few ways you can recoup your energy. The first is to use your general attacks on creatures, as you successfully hit each one your energy fills a little until it tops the meter off. The other way is to reach out to your familiar who follows you around the screen. My familiar was a butterfly that I could run over to when I’d run low on energy and it would fill my meter about half way. When you utilize your familiar in this way they must also recharge, so use them wisely.
One of the more unique items that you acquire as you slice your way through the hordes of demons and undead are Blood Orbs. Blood Orbs appear on the battlefield seemingly at random (although the more enemies you cut down the more likely they are to appear). As you acquire these orbs it fills a Blood lust meter and when full imbues your character with incredible power and near invincibility until the meter runs out. The Orbs don’t stay on the battlefield forever however, and they slowly lose power the longer you wait to gather them, so it encourages you to step out of the battle (or in my case roll out of the battle) to gather them as quickly as you can. As you progress your character you’ll be given the chance to upgrade these as well which essentially allows you to fill multiple meters and grants you this special power for longer lengths of time.
Skills are broken down into various types which allow you to outfit your character to best suit your play style. There are literally dozens of both active and passive skills to choose from, and each of these skills can be upgraded as well for improved effects or damage. As the Wood Elf Elessa, I was able to summon dryads to my side to help me deal with the hordes of enemies. In edition there are also God Skills that you acquire as you level up and complete missions. These special skills unlock more powerful abilities but also unlock traits as you apply the points. Traits such as health regeneration or critical hit chances are only some of the ones that you can unlock along the God Skill tree that give you a sense that your character is becoming more unstoppable with every skill acquired.
Unfortunately, the inconsistent voice acting is what relegates Chaosbane to being good instead of great. I made the mistake of choosing the character with the worst voice acting in the bunch and if I had played through with another character I may not have noticed how truly terrible it was. Elessa delivers her lines in an almost wooden (pun intended) manner, almost as if reading directly from a script. This gets even more noticeable when on occasion her voice changes to that of a man. The developers and testers did a good job of catching most of them, but there were at least five or six dialog trees where Elessa’s voice changed completely. I have two theories on this, my first theory (although I hadn’t confirmed this) is that the character was originally meant to be portrayed as a man and was changed to add a bit more diversity to the line-up. Not that there is anything wrong with having the main characters all be male, but it certainly could have limited the appeal of the audience. My second theory is that some of the dialog was simply place holders while they were sourcing out the right voice actors and simply missed replacing the audio bytes.
Either way, Elessa isn’t the only place where the voice acting takes a turn for the worst, other characters suffer from this fate as well. While the Warhammer games have always used bravado to deliver their dialog, it is simply too over the top in most cases. The first boss I encountered sounded like Cobra Commander who had just walked off the set of the latest GI Joe Cartoon to lead the forces of Chaos…Yo Joe! The fact that the game is voice acted entirely is something that I do applaud the developers for insisting on, it’s just disappointing that you find yourself reading through the dialog as quickly as possible and skipping the voices whenever you can.
Even with its flaws Warhammer: Chaosbane is a fun Diablo clone and an absolute blast to play. The story is forgettable, the voices laughable, but the combat scratches the same itch that any other action roleplaying game provides. There’s plenty of loot to acquire, that ranges from common to rare, and your ability to “bless” items to make them more powerful is an added bonus. There are a whopping ten levels of difficulty, each level provides for a more difficult adventure with the promise of even better loot. With both couch co-op and online multiplayer, it even harkened me back to the days of playing the original Gauntlet in the arcades. If you like the Warhammer universe and are looking for a game you can pick up and play with relative ease, then Warhammer: Chaosbane is just the game you are looking for.
What I liked: Fun combat, Amazing selection of skills, Plays equally well with keyboard/mouse or controller
What I liked less: Terrible voice acting, Repetitive loot drops, Forgettable story
Much like the games that it takes inspiration from, you have the opportunity to pick one of four characters to battle the Lords of Chaos and bring order to the land. Your standard archetype characters are all here in standard Warhammer Fantasy. The Dwarven “Slayer” class, for those who like a barbarian class to rage havoc upon his foes, The High-Elf Mage who utilizes his magic to bring down the forces of chaos, the ho-hum Imperial Soldier who can take and deal out a huge amount of damage, and the Wood Elf who uses her bow and dagger to deal damage at a frighteningly fast pace.
Each of the characters have their own unique secondary ability that allows them to gain a strategic advantage on their foes. The Slayer can vault himself into enemies (much like the Barbarian class in Diablo), The Mage can control magical projectiles towards his targets, the Imperial soldier can shield bash targets and the Wood Elf can tumble in and out of danger. I played through the vast majority of the game as the Wood Elf and learning to use her tumble ability and stay mobile is some of the best ways to beat the bosses that you will come across.
One area where Warhammer: Chaosbane improves on the standard Diablo formula is how it handles health and energy/mana. Various items you equip can provide health regeneration on their own or you also possess the ability to use a “health Potion” that refills slowly each time you use it. Thankfully this means you don’t have individual health potions cluttering up your inventory. Mana/Energy is used for special attacks and actions…each time you use a skill some of your Mana/Energy is used. There are a few ways you can recoup your energy. The first is to use your general attacks on creatures, as you successfully hit each one your energy fills a little until it tops the meter off. The other way is to reach out to your familiar who follows you around the screen. My familiar was a butterfly that I could run over to when I’d run low on energy and it would fill my meter about half way. When you utilize your familiar in this way they must also recharge, so use them wisely.
One of the more unique items that you acquire as you slice your way through the hordes of demons and undead are Blood Orbs. Blood Orbs appear on the battlefield seemingly at random (although the more enemies you cut down the more likely they are to appear). As you acquire these orbs it fills a Blood lust meter and when full imbues your character with incredible power and near invincibility until the meter runs out. The Orbs don’t stay on the battlefield forever however, and they slowly lose power the longer you wait to gather them, so it encourages you to step out of the battle (or in my case roll out of the battle) to gather them as quickly as you can. As you progress your character you’ll be given the chance to upgrade these as well which essentially allows you to fill multiple meters and grants you this special power for longer lengths of time.
Skills are broken down into various types which allow you to outfit your character to best suit your play style. There are literally dozens of both active and passive skills to choose from, and each of these skills can be upgraded as well for improved effects or damage. As the Wood Elf Elessa, I was able to summon dryads to my side to help me deal with the hordes of enemies. In edition there are also God Skills that you acquire as you level up and complete missions. These special skills unlock more powerful abilities but also unlock traits as you apply the points. Traits such as health regeneration or critical hit chances are only some of the ones that you can unlock along the God Skill tree that give you a sense that your character is becoming more unstoppable with every skill acquired.
Unfortunately, the inconsistent voice acting is what relegates Chaosbane to being good instead of great. I made the mistake of choosing the character with the worst voice acting in the bunch and if I had played through with another character I may not have noticed how truly terrible it was. Elessa delivers her lines in an almost wooden (pun intended) manner, almost as if reading directly from a script. This gets even more noticeable when on occasion her voice changes to that of a man. The developers and testers did a good job of catching most of them, but there were at least five or six dialog trees where Elessa’s voice changed completely. I have two theories on this, my first theory (although I hadn’t confirmed this) is that the character was originally meant to be portrayed as a man and was changed to add a bit more diversity to the line-up. Not that there is anything wrong with having the main characters all be male, but it certainly could have limited the appeal of the audience. My second theory is that some of the dialog was simply place holders while they were sourcing out the right voice actors and simply missed replacing the audio bytes.
Either way, Elessa isn’t the only place where the voice acting takes a turn for the worst, other characters suffer from this fate as well. While the Warhammer games have always used bravado to deliver their dialog, it is simply too over the top in most cases. The first boss I encountered sounded like Cobra Commander who had just walked off the set of the latest GI Joe Cartoon to lead the forces of Chaos…Yo Joe! The fact that the game is voice acted entirely is something that I do applaud the developers for insisting on, it’s just disappointing that you find yourself reading through the dialog as quickly as possible and skipping the voices whenever you can.
Even with its flaws Warhammer: Chaosbane is a fun Diablo clone and an absolute blast to play. The story is forgettable, the voices laughable, but the combat scratches the same itch that any other action roleplaying game provides. There’s plenty of loot to acquire, that ranges from common to rare, and your ability to “bless” items to make them more powerful is an added bonus. There are a whopping ten levels of difficulty, each level provides for a more difficult adventure with the promise of even better loot. With both couch co-op and online multiplayer, it even harkened me back to the days of playing the original Gauntlet in the arcades. If you like the Warhammer universe and are looking for a game you can pick up and play with relative ease, then Warhammer: Chaosbane is just the game you are looking for.
What I liked: Fun combat, Amazing selection of skills, Plays equally well with keyboard/mouse or controller
What I liked less: Terrible voice acting, Repetitive loot drops, Forgettable story